W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:26:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxmHF0Niy_McjkHk2owsXdY0qZqRgif2dO2bB50N-MgN5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, W3C WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the HTML5
> spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on Aryeh's email.
>
> Aryeh told me there are some related bugs:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425
>
> Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong) opinion on
> Aryeh's question below?

I should point out that the WebApps WG's charter lets it take on specs
split out from HTML5.  For such specs to be merely discussed here
should be no impingement on the HTML WG's scope, a fortiori.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> I don't see Shelley Powers' objection being addressed. She has expressed
> concerns that the HTML Editing APIs have been taken out of W3C WGs and
> associated processes.

Your wording suggests that the functionality was ever meaningfully
specified within a W3C WG.  This is not the case.  The specification
text in the HTML5 draft was unusable and would have had to be removed
eventually anyway, because it was untestably vague.  The current HTML
Editing APIs specification was written from scratch and was never
within the W3C until now, when it's been moved into a Community Group.

Community Groups are within the W3C.  Presumably the reason the W3C
created Community Groups is because it would like people to use them
for specification development, so using them for that purpose seems
like it should be uncontroversial.  The specification is not covered
by W3C's Process, but in my opinion that's a good thing, for reasons I
have laid out elsewhere in detail.

> Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text editing as
> a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG editing
> specification is now the -only- supported solution for developers to author
> editing environments.

It is not accurate to refer to the specification as Google or WHATWG.
It's in the public domain, so Google has no more right to it than
anyone else.  Google paid for its development up to this point, but no
one from Google but me has exercised any discretion as to its
contents, and I'll continue working on it under different employment
if necessary.  The spec has nothing to do with the WHATWG, except that
I used their mailing list for a while.

You can refer to it as "the HTML editing specification", since it's
the only one.  Or "the HTML Editing APIs specification", to use its
<title>.  If you would like to disambiguate, you can refer to it as
mine, since I'm the author and editor.

> Aryeh, consider releasing more authority to the W3C process. The
> specification is fairly mature, I'm not seeing push-back on this spec, and I
> know that there are several voices which would better served through formal
> process.

I disagree.  I don't believe that the W3C Process is useful, and in
fact I think it's actively harmful, at least for the type of spec I'm
working on.  I support the W3C Community Groups initiative and believe
it will serve a very valuable purpose, and I object to others'
attempts to undermine the W3C's goals in undertaking that initiative.
If it eventually does prove useful to move the specification to REC
track, that can easily be done at any later date.  There is nothing to
gain and much to lose by prematurely abandoning this trial of the
W3C's bold and commendable attempt to introduce alternative, less
cumbersome ways to develop web specifications.

> Also, try to get this onto the hg repositories, in the same style
> that DOM4 has been entered. It works well for maintaining your CC0/WHATWG
> labels while also providing the W3C with a publishable draft under their own
> restrictions.

The authoritative version control history has been at dvcs.w3.org
since Ian Jacobs gave me access a couple of days ago:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing

Note that this is the first link for version history at the top of the
draft, with the second one being a github mirror for those who prefer
git:

http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html

Currently the specification itself is still hosted at aryeh.name
because the Community Group technical infrastructure isn't finished
yet.  As soon as I'm able to post an up-to-date version of the spec at
w3.org, I'll move it there and change the aryeh.name URL to a
redirect.
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 20:26:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT